On the basis of these findings, a series of performance ratings were made for each construct and have been included in Tables 3.3-3.5 for reference below. The terms high, moderate, and low were used in lieu of a numeric rating system to better represent the level of performance exhibited by each settlement for the identified constructs. Though the sub-construct of pedestrian access was less thoroughly
documented than other constructs, ratings for each settlement on this point are included for reference (Table 3.5). Determinations were made for each construct through
comparative analysis within the confines of the study. As such, the rank of each
settlement is reasonable only in relation to other sampled areas and cannot be used for comparison with sites not subjected to the methodology.
For the construct of density, three sub-constructs were analyzed: built, dwelling, and use density. For the sub-construct of built density, though the level of development observed in each settlement, high and low, were very similar, the informal settlement of Gumuspinar exhibited the highest percentage of undeveloped units. This settlement was given a “moderate” rating. The formal settlement of Esentepe and blended settlement of Cevizli exhibited a similarly high percentage of developed units, of high and low designation, and received “high” ratings.
71
For the sub-construct of dwelling density, Gumuspinar exhibited the highest percentage of housing overall, with an even mix of low-density and combined units.
Esentepe exhibited a much lower percentage of housing than Cevizli, but was more adequately mixed. Cevizli exhibited the highest percentage of low-density housing overall, with fewer mass combined housing units than the other two units. As such, Esentepe received a “moderate” rating in comparison to Cevizli’s “low” rating.
For the sub-construct of use density, the most even distribution of industrial, residential, and blended units were observed in the formal settlement of Esentepe. The informal settlement of Gumuspinar was completely dominated by residential units and thus received the lowest rating. Cevizli exhibited a more even use mixture than
Gumuspinar, but was not of the quality of Esentepe, and thus received a “moderate”
rating. The performance ratings for the construct of density have been summarized below in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Performance ratings, density
Settlement Built Dwelling Use
Esentepe high moderate high
Gumuspinar moderate high low
Cevizli high low moderate
For the construct of grain, the blended settlement of Cevizli received the lowest rating. Though only one edge was documented in Cevizli, fewer paths were observed in this sample than the others and a higher number of landmarks were needed to define the settlement. Sharp transitions between residential and industrial areas minimized visual links, contributing to the perception of large, single use districts. The formal
settlement of Esentepe exhibited a much finer grain than Cevizli, with more documented paths. Though only three nodes were documented in Esentepe, more gradual
72
transitions were observed overall and fewer landmarks were required to define the settlement. The informal settlement of Gumuspinar exhibited a higher number of nodes and paths that either of the other settlements, with much smaller districts. The
documented edges were significantly more permeable than the others as well, as paths and nodes frequently intersected them. Though the fewest number of landmarks were required to define Gumuspinar, the settlement consisted almost entirely of housing.
Without a substantial mixture of uses, neither settlement was of a sufficient quality to earn a “high” performance rating. Each has been labeled “moderate” instead. Though the grain of each settlement is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, the performance ratings for the construct of grain have been summarized below in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Performance ratings, grain Settlement Rating
Esentepe moderate
Gumuspinar moderate
Cevizli low
For the construct of access, three sub-constructs were analyzed: transit,
vehicular, and pedestrian access. The transit routes observed in the blended settlement of Cevizli were the most numerous and expansive of the sample areas, and thus
received a “high” performance rating. The informal settlement of Gumuspinar was least accessible by public transit, with only a single route available to users beneath the inter-district highway. A “moderate” rating was given to the formal settlement of Esentepe, whose transit routes where restricted to major highways. Though adequate for use in some districts, these routes did not service sample area as comprehensively as those observed in the blended settlement.
73
Vehicular paths were most expansive in the informal settlement of Gumuspinar, where the highest numbers of residential units were observed. Though the blended settlement of Cevizli exhibited a similarly high number of vehicular paths, the proportion of streets and roads were not consistent from district to district. An extremely small number of roads were observed in the formal housing and industrial areas and despite formal intervention the district received a “moderate” rating. The formal settlement of Esentepe exhibited even larger gaps in vehicular access. Entire districts in the north were devoid of streets and paths, and the settlement received a “low” performance rating for this sub-construct as a result.
For the sub-construct of pedestrian access, the informal settlement of
Gumuspinar seemed most promising. Paved and unpaved paths were more consistent throughout the settlement, with few inhospitable streets and highways to limit access.
Though the formal settlement of Esentepe exhibited a much higher percentage of paved paths than Gumuspinar, enough accessible open spaces and paths were observed in each sample unit to secure a “moderate” performance rating. The blended settlement of Cevizli was deemed least accessible, for it not only contained the highest proportion of inhospitable pavement and paths, but also contained the highest number of fenced private spaces. The performance ratings for each sub-construct of access have been summarized below in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Performance ratings, access
Settlement Transit Vehicular Pedestrian
Esentepe moderate low moderate
Gumuspinar low high high
Cevizli high moderate low
74
Conclusion
A synthesis of the ratings recorded in Table 3.3 suggests that of the three sample areas observed, the formal settlement of Esentepe was the most satisfactorily dense, having received moderate to high ratings in each sub-construct analysis. As recorded in Table 3.4, the informal and formal settlements each received a satisfactory rating for the grain construct, though neither Gumuspinar nor Esentepe were exemplary on this point.
A synthesis of the ratings recorded in Table 3.5 suggests that the informal settlement of Gumuspinar was the most accessible of the sampled areas, receiving high ratings in two of the three sub-constructs. Performance ratings of this type, though rudimentary, are a useful means of distilling the complex phenomena observed during the analysis.
These ratings additionally lend themselves to a hierarchical system that could be reinterpreted for use in GIS mapping of each settlement in the future.
75